The Supreme Court Database is the definitive source for researchers, students, journalists, and citizens interested in the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Database contains over two hundred pieces of information about each case decided by the Court between the 1791 and 2016 terms. Examples include the identity of the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed, the parties to the suit, the legal provisions considered in the case, and the votes of the Justices.

Are you interested in a particular legal or political issue? Do you seek information about the current Court or about a particular year? Perhaps you are interested in the votes of the Justices in cases about religion, commerce, or another area of the law. The analysis tools allow you to select and summarize cases from the Modern or Legacy Database based on your needs.

Are you new to the Supreme Court Database? Wondering how to start doing your online analysis? The SCDB Web 101 series can get you underway on the quick.View the 101 Lessons

Looking for the Codebook? We have an online and downloadable version. Access them using the below links.

The 2016-17 Term

The percentage of cases decided by a 5-to-4 or a 5-to-3 vote was 14 percent, compared to an average since 1946 of 22 percent. [Using] another measure of consensus, dividing the number of votes in support of the majority or plurality opinion by the total number of votes cast. . . . last term’s rate, 89 percent, was the highest in at least 70 years.
- NY Times, June 27, 2017

“The suggestion that [this case] will somehow obliterate the ‘wall of separation’ [between church and state] ignores the many ways in which government funding already benefits religious institutions through tax benefits, grants, partnerships, even police and fire services,” -Washington Post, June 26, 2017

“Given all of President Trump’s public promises of a Muslim ban, it is hard to imagine a clearer case of governmental action motivated by animus toward a single religion than the executive order here. This act of hostility and prejudice toward a religion cannot stand under the First Amendment of the Constitution.” -June 26, 2017

“The Supreme Court has removed a very valuable tool that pharma companies can use to segment markets. We may think that’s a good policy outcome in the US, but we’re very concerned about the impact abroad.” -STAT, May 30, 2017